HOW THE JEWS CREATED THE ZIONIST KINGDOM OF ‘SAUDI’ ARABIA
Sabba – As Mike Piper would say, whenever we see ‘British Empire’, we should read the ‘Yiddish Empire’ instead.
is not a bad article but it does not provide a clear back ground on the
ibn saud clan and it leaves a major element out of the equation:
wahhabism as an ideology. One can not understand why the ibn saud do
what they do without understanding that wahhabism is the arabic
offspring of judaism.
those who are interested, Sheikh Imran Hosein had written many many
years a little booklet on the subject: “The Caliphate, The Hijaz and the
Saudi Wahabi Nation State” and which can be downloaded from his
MONDOWEISS – HOW ZIONISM HELPED CREATE THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
Nu’man Abd al-Wahid
alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of
Israel should be no surprise to any student of British imperialism. The
problem is the study of British imperialism has very few students.
Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British
university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics degree on
the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters degree. Of
course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between
1914 – 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it’s not too difficult to
find an appropriate institution to
teach this subject, but if you would like to delve into how and why the
British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred years
you’re practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that
from the British establishment’s perspective, this is a formidable and
In late 2014, according to the American journal, “Foreign Affairs”,
the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said
“His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations
between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no
exception.” Recently, Abdullah’s successor, King Salman expressed
similar concerns to those of Israel’s to the growing agreement between
the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. This led
some to report that Israel and KSA presented a “united front”
in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time
the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in
dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960’s, the
Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign
against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after
overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s Egypt
militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis
to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam’s supporters.
Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times.
The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists
and Saudis together in 1960’s North Yemen against their common foe.
must go back to the 1920’s to fully appreciate the origins of this
informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist
entity. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World
War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula:
Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of
Ha’il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his
religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.
Ibn Saud had
entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but
was quickly defeated and his British handler, William Shakespear was
killed by the Ottoman Empire’s ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat greatly
hampered Ibn Saud’s utility to the Empire and left him militarily
hamstrung for a year. The Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman
Empire’s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-called ‘Arab
Revolt’ in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He
was convinced to totally alter his position because the British had
strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry McMahon, the
British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from
Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the defeat of the
Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and Henry McMahon
are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.
the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their
war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war time promises,
as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The British, on the
other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire’s new reality which
was a division of the Arab world between them and the French
(Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration,
which guaranteed ‘a national for the Jewish people’ in Palestine by
colonisation with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the
British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly
averse to signing. After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks
was dubbed the ‘Arab Revolt’ not the ‘Hijazi Revolt’.
Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the
Empire’s Balfour Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the
establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new random borders
drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part
the British began referring to him as an ‘obstructionist’, a ‘nuisance’
and of having a ‘recalcitrant’ attitude.
let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic
measures to bring about his approval of the new reality regardless of
the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the Cairo
Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston
Churchill met with all the British operatives in the Middle East, T.E.
Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to bribe and
bully him to accept Britain’s Zionist colonial project in Palestine.
Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000 rupees. The Sharif
rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual payment of
£100,000. The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to
bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an
Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that “politically and militarily,
the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite kingdom was
wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to
protect and maintain his rule in the region.”  In between negotiating
with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other leaders in the
Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don’t tow the
British line and avoid entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the
Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all is at
Britain’s ‘beck and call’.
after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the
Sharif’s son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, “Emir”, of a new
territory called “Transjordan.” Churchill informed Abdullah that he
should persuade “his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a
treaty to such effect,” if not “the British would unleash Ibn Saud
against Hijaz.” In the meantime the British were planning to unleash
Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha’il, Ibn Rashid.
Ibn Rashid had
rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn
Saud, to be another of its puppets. More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his
territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as well as to the
borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned
that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the
northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who controlled the western
part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the
Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under
the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed
with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that “Ibn Saud should be ‘given
the opportunity to occupy Hail.’” By the end of 1920, the British
were showering Ibn Saud with “a monthly ‘grant’ of £10,000 in gold, on
top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies,
totalling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and
four field guns” with British-Indian instructors. Finally, in
September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha’il which officially
surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British
bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be “Emir of Najd
and Chief of its Tribes” but “Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies”.
Ha’il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire’s Sultan of Najd.
If the Empire
thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to
the teeth by the British, would finally become more amenable to the
division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial project in Palestine
they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla’s son,
acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in
a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered to the Sharif
with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he “accept
reality”, he didn’t even bother to read the treaty and instead composed a
draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia as well as
the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified!
1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain’s subsidy to the extent
that by the early 1920’s they had suspended it, while at the same time
continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early 1920’s. After
a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned
on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great
Britain’s Zionist project or accept the new divisions in Arab
lands.In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will
cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance ‘grant’ of
£50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year’s subsidy.
In March 1924,
a year after the British awarded the ‘grant’ to Ibn Saud, the Empire
announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to
reach an agreement. Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud and his
Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign
secretary, Lord Curzon called the “final kick” to Sharif Hussain and
attacked Hijazi territory. By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun
the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta’if. The Empire then wrote to
Sharif’s sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not
to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic
terms they were informed “to give no countenance to interference in the
Hedjaz”. In Ta’if, Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis committed their customary
massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques
and killing traditional Islamic scholars. They captured the holiest
place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced
to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was
replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental
base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British
found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba
into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to
rally Arabs against the Empire’s Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known
that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will
attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had “never
acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against
the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the
was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman
Empire during the ‘Arab Revolt’, on the 18th June 1925 on HMS
Ibn Saud had
begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally
surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule
by the Prophet Muhammad’s descendants. The British officially recognised
Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European
powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was
rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A
certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at
the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.
propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on
three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud’s
invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by
British imperialism’s geo-political considerations. This deception
is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis’s acclaimed BBC “Bitter Lake”
documentary, whereby he states that the “fierce intolerant vision of
wahhabism” drove the “beduins” to create Saudi Arabia. Secondly, the
British portrayed Ibn Saud’s Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and
misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest
form. To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most
benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and
the West such as 1980’s Afghanistan or in today’s Syria, where they are
referred to in the western media as “moderate rebels.”
Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force
and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be
surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan’s
recent study on the history on Arabs claims that “Ibn Saud had no
interest in fighting” the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as
Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that
Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing “his own objectives” which
fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.
one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the
British Empire’s commitment to “use their best endeavours to facilitate”
the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people”. Obviously,
many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what
makes Saudi Arabia’s borders distinctive is that its northern and
north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the
creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab
sheikhdoms of Ha’il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis is based in their
leaders’ rejection to facilitate the British Empire’s Zionist project in
is very clear that the British Empire’s drive to impose Zionism in
Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi
Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in
Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings
because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine
in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia
are keen in militarily intervening on the side of “moderate rebels”
i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and
overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.
As the United
States, the ‘successor’ to the British Empire in defending western
interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant
in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability
that the two nations rooted in the Empire’s Balfour Declaration, Israel
and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their
 Gary Troeller, “The Birth of Saudi Arabia” (London: Frank Cass, 1976) pg.91.
 Askar H.
al-Enazy, “ The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial
Policy, 1914-1927” (London: Routledge, 2010), pg. 105-106.
 ibid., pg. 109.
 ibid., pg.111.
 ibid., pg 107.
 ibid., pg. 45-46 and pg.101-102.
 ibid., pg.104.
 ibid., pg. 113.
 ibid., pg.110 and Troeller, op. cit., pg.166.
Howarth, “The Desert King: The Life of Ibn Saud” (London: Quartet Books,
1980), pg. 133 and Randall Baker, “King Husain and the Kingdom of
Hejaz” (Cambridge: The Oleander Press, 1979), pg.201-202.
 Quoted in al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 144.
 ibid., pg. 138 and Troeller op. cit., pg. 216.
In the original full length BBC iPlayer version this segment begins towards the end at 2 hrs 12 minutes 24 seconds.
 al-Enazy op. cit., pg. 153.
 Eugene Rogan, “The Arabs: A History”, (London: Penguin Books, 2009), pg.220.
Lahir di Kubu Gajah, Semanggul Julai 3, 1952 dan membesar di Beruas, Pk.
Mengajar di SMK Seri Gunung, Kelantan, SMV(Pertanian) Chenor, Pahang.
Editor-in-Chief di McGraw-Hill FEP International dan Editor di Berita Publishing S/B (NSTP Groups)
Anugerah 'Novel Terbaik' Malaysia; Anugerah 'Editor Terbaik '94; Novelis Perak '95